[ Page 10817 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

M. de Jong: In the gallery today is Nicola Powadiuk, a UVic student. She now hails, when she is not in Victoria, from Revelstoke. I hope my colleagues in the House will make her feel welcome.

Ministerial Statement

AIDS AWARENESS

While it's very hard to mark another year that HIV/AIDS is with us, it is important for us to focus our attention on this subject and to recognize the human face that lives behind this disease. There are many ways to remember all those who have died from AIDS. Today we honour their memory by wearing a red ribbon. This year, the United Nation AIDS organization and its partners are hoping to focus the world's attention on youth. Young people are vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, and we must do all that we can to help them to grow up healthy and strong.

In North America it is currently estimated that half of all new infections occur before the age of 23, and many researchers feel that the long incubation period of HIV suggests that many young adults were infected as teenagers. Worldwide, a child is infected every five minutes, and children account for one-third of the 30 million people worldwide infected with HIV/AIDS. All of us in society -- especially government, teachers, parents, friends -- have a tremendous responsibility to arm young people with the facts on AIDS. We cannot afford to be robbed of any more of our youth.

December 1 also marks Aboriginal AIDS Awareness Day in Canada, and by marking this day we increase awareness about HIV/AIDS both within and beyond aboriginal communities. In British Columbia 32 percent of all women and 12 percent of all men newly diagnosed with HIV are aboriginal. This is a very serious concern for the aboriginal community, and it is a priority for this government.

I must just comment on the issue of prevention, hon. Speaker. This province is determined to prevent new HIV infections, and we're doing this through a harm-reduction approach, through needle exchanges and other services for injection drug users and through a multi-ministry approach to supporting people's physical, social and emotional needs to change the factors that make people more vulnerable to infection. In the area of treatment we currently spend over $22.5 million on anti-retroviral drug therapies for B.C. residents living with HIV and AIDS, and we've seen solid results in fewer new infections and a reduced AIDS mortality rate in British Columbia. We saw a 56 percent drop in AIDS deaths last year, over 1996.

In the area of research, we are also advancing prevention, care and treatment through research by participating in drug trials and supporting access to training. Ministry of Health funding for HIV/AIDS services totalled over $57 million in 1997, and millions more were spent through other ministries for support services such as housing and benefits.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, as Minister of Health and on behalf of British Columbians, I want to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the many organizations, caregivers, advocates and volunteers for their vital contribution and dedication in trying to wrestle with this epidemic. HIV does affect all of us, and through our collective efforts we must move past the stigma and shame surrounding the disease in our efforts to stop AIDS for the sake of future generations. To achieve this, we must open our hands and our hearts by offering compassion and humanity, and we must provide action.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House today.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. In response, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I rise for the first time in this House as the official opposition critic for Health. And in this task on World AIDS Day, it is an issue of this nature that makes me appreciate very quickly the complexities of the issues involved in health care and how in so many cases there are no simple answers.

Hon. Speaker, I would certainly like to identify with the minister's comments and support them -- and support those who are fighting HIV and AIDS in British Columbia today. Clearly we have a major crisis on our hands. The Vancouver-Richmond health board, only a year ago, declared a public health emergency in the downtown east side. Close to half of the 6,000 to 8,000 addicts on the downtown east side are believed to be infected with the AIDS-causing virus.

With my new responsibility, I would like to make a commitment to the minister that I look forward to working with her and with her ministry and to working with those who are advocates around British Columbia in trying to find solutions to this problem and cures for HIV and AIDS. I would like to make a commitment to show that kind of cooperation in the hope that in working together in a very non-partisan way, we can do our part in trying to find cures for this very devastating illness that is infecting so many of our British Columbia youth.

The Speaker: Further ministerial statements? No.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading)

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in my place today to move second reading of Bill 51, Nisga'a

[ Page 10818 ]

I recognize that today there will likely be some in our galleries and some watching these proceedings who may not be entirely familiar with the proceedings that go on in a parliamentary debate. They will therefore perhaps wonder about some of our usages and some of the language we use in this debate, and I thought that it would be appropriate for me to begin by simply making very clear what second reading means -- what that amounts to.

[10:15]

Let me explain. It was in 1763, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, that the sovereignty of the British Crown was asserted. What we know as Canada today, then called British North America, was in fact created at that point. The British, to their credit, recognized that the new land was not what is called in legal terms terra nullius, uninhabited land. Rather, they acknowledged that there was a society here, already living in Canada -- a society with its own language, its own culture, its own religion, its own customs, its own economic systems and indeed its own system of government. In recognition of that fact, there was a royal proclamation issued in 1763 which acknowledged that the lands occupied by aboriginal people, unless purchased by the Crown or ceded by way of treaty, for example, were to be "reserved" for Indians. This was our law.

It was non-aboriginal people who set out the rules by which we all should play. The awkward truth is that we the non-aboriginals, the late arrivals, did not do so. Treaties were signed in other provinces in Canada, but with very few exceptions, they were not signed in British Columbia. Throughout British Columbia's history, there has therefore been an elephant sleeping in our living room. What we do is try to go on as if it isn't there; in fact, we've even tried to avoid talking about it. It's been referred to in history as "the land question," but you know, until very recently it was not even profiled in the teaching of history or social studies or political science.

In making a treaty with the Nisga'a nation and with other first nations in this province, we are attempting at long last to reconcile the prior presence of aboriginal people with the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. That's the principle behind this bill; that's why we are starting this debate today.

There are some, Madam Speaker, who would question whether this Legislature is the place to make this decision. They argue, rather, that the people should decide. There are also some who argue that it is the court that should decide -- even before the legislation passes this House. I want to respond briefly, then, to those questions and to those criticisms. Let me say, as emphatically as I am able, that I want to do so with the proper regard and respect for those who are opposing the questions and raising the concerns. Indeed, I hope that's the kind of debate we will have about this important matter.

Let's be very clear. The Legislative Assembly of this province is the supreme law-making authority of this province; the Legislature legislates. Under our system of government, there is a very clear separation between the Legislature and the judiciary and between their respective functions. Under our system, the Legislature makes the law; the judiciary interprets the laws. The courts, therefore, are not in the business of making laws -- nor should they be.

Interestingly enough, that is exactly the point made by the Supreme Court of Canada in its recent Delgamuukw decision. Let me quote what Chief Justice Lamer said in that decision. He said: "Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this court, that we will achieve. . . 'reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.' " In more blunt terms, the Supreme Court of Canada effectively told the governments of Canada and British Columbia to negotiate with first nations to resolve land claims and not expect the courts to solve the problems. They said, in fact, that negotiation will lead to legislation, and thereby you avoid litigation. That was the clear message.

Let me turn now to the question of whether this Legislature and its members ought to be making the decision about this treaty. This is an argument that I know has some credence with people who may be watching this debate. They will ask, understandably: "Why shouldn't the people decide?" Let me just say this. We live in a parliamentary democracy. It's often called a representative democracy. Individuals are chosen by their constituents to come to this place, to represent their voices and their opinions. Every legislator in this building -- elected here -- will attest to the fact that this is not always easily done. How does one find out what the majority opinion is in one's constituency? Can every voice be heard? The answer to that question, as it has evolved over a very long time in our history, is that the MLA will ultimately rely on her or his judgment.

Of course the member's decision will be affected by the opinions of constituents. But MLAs will also be influenced by other things, such as their detailed knowledge of a measure that comes before the House. That's why MLAs are full-time politicians; that's why they're paid a salary. They're paid to do the job of scrutinizing legislation. That's why they're given staff and resources to assist them in that task. To say that MLAs cannot vote on important matters that come before the House is, in effect, to say that the parliamentary system itself should be scrapped. I and my government categorically reject that proposition. Parliament lives, and it ought to live. I was amazed, therefore, to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in this chamber yesterday, suggest that not having a referendum on this measure would somehow continue "the pattern of paternalism."

The parliamentary system is not paternalism. It's 700 years of democracy in the western world. It's a system that people have fought and died for. It's the acceptance of the notion that as a member of the Legislature, you have an obligation to make tough decisions and to stand up and

[ Page 10819 ]

The next question that people are asking, again quite legitimately, is whether we really need to do this treaty -- whether we need to sign the treaty with the Nisga'a. Let us be absolutely clear: the status quo is not an option. We must negotiate treaties, and the Nisga'a is only the first of those that we must negotiate. I say this for three primary reasons. The first is that our laws and the courts tell us that we must negotiate; second, there are compelling economic reasons to do so; and third, to coin a phrase, because it's the right thing to do.

Let me deal with each of these. The constitution of Canada protects and indeed entrenches aboriginal rights. As members in this House will surely know, section 35 states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Section 25 of the Charter clearly states that the guarantees in the Charter of certain rights and freedoms "shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including" -- here's the important point -- "(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlements."

Since 1982, aboriginal rights have indeed been entrenched in the constitution -- that's given. You can imagine, then, my amazement when I was driving in this morning. I listened on the radio to a tape from last night's debate, which quoted the Leader of the Opposition as saying he was concerned that the Nisga'a treaty "entrenches inequality in the constitution." One of the reasons for creating the Charter of Rights and acknowledging aboriginal rights in the Charter was that we recognized the oppressive nature of the Indian Act. That's what it was about. First nations people have therefore been going to court and negotiating treaties -- and modern treaties -- ever since, in order to acquire the rights that have been denied them because of the Indian Act.

What the Nisga'a treaty does is remove the Indian Act. That's its purpose. It gets rid of the Indian Act, and it sets out at great length -- 260-odd pages -- the rights of the Nisga'a and the rights of others. It shows us the new relationship between the Nisga'a first nations and the rest of us. The Nisga'a have agreed to be bound by the laws of Canada and British Columbia. If anybody wants to talk about the entrenchment of inequality, they should look at the Indian Act -- that's what it's about -- and look at what it has achieved.

Look at the treatment of aboriginal people in this country. Think about it. Life expectancy is lower; illness is more common. We have human problems like family violence and alcoholism -- things of that nature that are much more common among aboriginal communities than otherwise. Life expectancy is lower, alcoholism, abuse. . . . Fewer children graduate from high school; fewer children go on to colleges and universities. Indian reserves often have outrageous housing, a lack of water and proper sanitation systems. Fewer aboriginal people have jobs. More spend time in jails and in prisons. Life expectancy is more than ten years less than for the rest of us, and the infant death rate is twice as high.

What more evidence do we want than the fact that the current system is broken and we must fix it? The Indian Act has indeed, for all intents and purposes, entrenched inequality. That's what we're trying to fix; that's what this treaty is ultimately about. Aboriginal rights exist, and they're constitutionally protected. What's more, the Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 broadened the definition of aboriginal rights to talk about aboriginal title, and that is also recognized as an aboriginal right. It now exists. What all of this means, of course, is that we must resolve land claims in this province. We must do so. If we don't, clearly we could be in court, and we could have the end of any significant activity in this province.

That leads me to the second reason I want to present: that negotiating treaties is in fact -- I think it is fair to say -- likely to be to everybody's economic benefit. A number of studies by academics over the past decade have come to one very clear conclusion -- namely, that the principal impediment to growth in this province is what has been referred to by some as the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the land base. Obviously people will be unwilling to make significant investments in this province if their ownership of the land is not guaranteed. That's the primary economic argument. There are others, of course, not the least of which is that the settlement of treaties -- and Nisga'a in particular -- promises a huge flow of cash into British Columbia from the rest of Canada.

[10:30]

The third reason why we must negotiate treaties and why we negotiated Nisga'a is because it is indeed the right thing to do. My reasons for saying that will start in the past but will go into the present. I think it would be stretching a point -- and I say this delicately -- to say that the colonial governments before Confederation or the government of Canada after Confederation wanted to settle treaties because it was the right thing to do. Rather, treaties were seen as a means of clearing the way for settlement and development.

In British Columbia, as most of us know, we had our brief flurry with treaty-making between 1849 and 1854. Governor Douglas carried on while he could. The treaties were hardly generous by anybody's guesstimates, but Douglas carried on until the British Crown effectively pulled the plug by saying, "We will no longer pay for them," and the provincial Legislature -- the colonial Legislature -- said: "Not our problem; not our responsibility." That's B.C.'s contribution to the debate.

The more important point, though, than not settling treaties was the attitude that animated why we didn't or, when we did, what we thought we were doing. That's the attitude that is usually captured in the word "assimilation." The more or less typical view of that, I think, is the one made famous by Joseph Trutch. He was the lands commissioner in British Columbia in 1867. He wrote, in a public document: "The Indians have really no right to the lands they claim, nor are they of any actual value or utility to them, and I cannot see why they should ever retain these lands to the prejudice of the general interests of the colony, or be allowed to make a market of them, either to the government or to individuals." Trutch in

[ Page 10820 ]

I think that what's clear from that statement, though -- and here's the point I want to make -- is that he regarded aboriginal people as inferior. That's the point. And he was more or less typical of his times. Indeed it is the perception of their own superiority that the European ancestors -- our ancestors, my ancestors -- brought with them to this land. It was the belief that fuelled colonialism and imperialism, and it still does -- the notion that one people is inherently superior to another and therefore has a right to push the other aside. The British called it "taking up the white man's burden." In French it was called la mission civilisatrice. In any language today, it is an obscenity, and that's what it should be called.

Perhaps the people of the time thought they were doing the right thing. They may have believed they were going to improve the lives of aboriginal people and were therefore justified in forbidding them to use their language or to practise their religion. Today I would dearly hope that nobody would contend that such policies were in any way acceptable.

I want to give just one small example -- not a well-known one -- of that assimilation, the superiority attitude that is so part and parcel of our history. In the Indian Act of 1876, there was a provision concerning Indians who earn degrees in universities, and it reads as follows:

"Any Indian who may be admitted to the degree of Doctor of Medicine or to any other degree by any University of Learning, or who may be admitted in any Province of the Dominion to practise law either as an Advocate or as a Barrister or Counsellor or Solicitor or Attorney or to be a Notary Public, or who may enter Holy Orders or who may be licensed by any denomination of Christians as a Minister of the Gospel, shall ipso facto become and be enfranchised under this Act."

Happily, I like to believe we see things differently today. Granting aboriginal people the right to fulfil their own destiny and to be the best that they can be on their own terms is what we should be doing. That's certainly what modern treaty-making is about; that's what Nisga'a is about. And that, you know, is why self-government is such a crucial part of modern treaties. It's not about maintaining the Indian Act, where Big Brother or Big Sister hovers over one's shoulder -- in Ottawa, I guess -- and says: "You can play at being a government, but non-aboriginal governments will ultimately make the decision about what you can or cannot do."

Modern treaty-making -- the Nisga'a treaty -- is about treating people as adults. It's about letting them decide what they want to do. That's what's at the heart of the Nisga'a treaty, the matter we are debating today.

In the Nisga'a treaty process, as everybody knows, I'm sure, the Nisga'a have been attempting to get a treaty for some 111 years. We all know the story about the travel to Victoria in 1887. We also know the story about 1913, when they went all the way to London to talk to the Privy Council. We know that they had no success. We also know that there were some very specific obstacles set in their way. In 1927, for example, the Parliament of Canada passed a law making it illegal for aboriginal people to hire lawyers to represent them in any activity related to land claims. We know all that.

What's amazing in all of that history is that the Nisga'a people somehow still had faith in our institutions. They still did. That's why in 1907 a group of chiefs in the Nass Valley formed the Nisga'a Land Committee. Its purpose was to fight, politically and through the courts, for their land rights. As we know, 42 years later they had success in that area. They elected Frank Calder as the first aboriginal member ever elected in this chamber, and I'm happy to see that Frank Calder is joining us this morning. I ask my colleagues to make him welcome.

You know, it might be coincidental, but it was the same year -- 1949 -- that aboriginal people got the right to vote provincially. So I think maybe Frank Calder and his political involvement may have had some connection with all that.

It was not until 1976, though, that the government of Canada really began negotiating a treaty with the Nisga'a tribal council. British Columbia, as we all know, was invited to the table, and it chose not to participate. It wasn't until 1990 that the Social Credit government led by Bill Vander Zalm decided to return to the table. Those negotiations, again, as we know, bore fruit some six years later when we reached the agreement-in-principle. We know that.

What I want to focus on is the germ of this treaty and what it accomplishes. Namely, what the treaty does and what, in my mind, makes it so significant and so unique is that it takes undefined rights that are now constitutionally protected and defines and codifies those rights in a treaty. Moreover, the treaty contains an exhaustive list of the rights that Nisga'a have, and any rights not outlined in the treaty are released by Nisga'a. The purpose of this is to provide certainty and provide finality. The treaty is a means to assure non-aboriginal people that these are the specific and the entire rights of Nisga'a people, and it also lays out the boundaries of Nisga'a territory. That is no small achievement. It's a huge achievement.

It's also worth emphasizing that the treaty is the result of long and difficult negotiations. The governments of Canada, of British Columbia and of the Nisga'a people all gave up something in order to achieve this treaty, in the hope of gaining a great deal more certainty and a just and honourable settlement for all the parties.

It's also worth noting, I think, that the treaty negotiation was very much an inclusive process. This wasn't foisted on anybody. The people of the northwest corner of this province have been directly involved in the negotiation for a very long time. They've had major input into the treaty. They've been instrumental in making changes from the original agreement-in-principle to the final treaty. Every interest group in the region has been consulted and has been involved, and the result of all this is that there is every evidence of widespread support for the treaty in that region of the province. Indeed, a number of local politicians have expressed some frustration that other regions are messing with -- interfering with -- their treaty.

I don't think, though, that anybody should pretend for a moment that the Nisga'a treaty will be a solution to all of the

[ Page 10821 ]

Joe Gosnell said that the treaty is about the Nisga'a people joining Canada, for they have been excluded from being equal partners in Canadian life for a very long time. I stood on a platform in Terrace with Nelson Leeson, a member of the Nisga'a negotiating teams, and he used a phrase that stayed with me. He said: "We want to be main players in B.C." I share that hope.

Madam Speaker, ratifying this treaty offers us a wonderful opportunity to bring the Nisga'a, as willing partners, into the mainstream of British Columbia and Canada, and it does so at a price that is affordable to all of us. The treaty will in effect abolish that offensive and paternalistic system we know as the Indian Act, and it will also set the stage for eliminating that system all across the province. By the terms of the treaty, the Nisga'a will become the first aboriginal people subject to the same laws as other British Columbians, including, quite significantly, our tax laws. Rights for non-aboriginal people on Nisga'a land will be substantially enhanced.

Compare what the treaty does with the status quo, and you'll see what I mean. On Indian reserves, band councils can override provincial laws. On Indian reserves, development projects, no matter what their impact might be on the environment, are exempt from B.C. environmental assessment. On Indian reserves, provincial laws and wildlife and pollution control do not apply. No one on a reserve is protected by provincial laws on waste disposal, housing standards or landlord-tenant relationships. The Nisga'a treaty does away with all of those inequities.

I want to zip ahead to what I think is one of the most exciting and significant aspects of the treaty -- and, in many ways, it gets to the heart of it: the treaty's effort to give the Nisga'a the tools to build an economic base and to regain control of their own destiny. As they build capacity and as they develop their resources, they will indeed, it seems to me, become main players, as my friend Nelson Leeson put it. They will be equal partners in this society and in the provincial economy of British Columbia.

[10:45]

And you know, Madam Speaker, there's one cost that critics of the treaty haven't said much about, and that's the cost of doing nothing. Lord knows, British Columbia is already paying that price. We're paying that price by marginalized communities with endemically and systemically high rates of unemployment. We're paying that price by lost investment, by lost employment, by lost opportunities. The cost is one that is huge. Indeed, estimates rate it at something like a billion dollars a year lost to this province in investment alone.

I believe that ratifying the Nisga'a treaty will take us a giant step forward in making British Columbia the kind of province most of us want it to be. About 25 years ago I was doing a master's degree in Canadian studies in Ottawa. At that time, the talk about Canada being a model for the world was all the rage, and we Canadians felt very proud of ourselves. We talked about how everybody wanted to be Canadian. We thought we had solved the problem of different cultures and languages working in this country. We did so, of course, not mindful of the fact there was one significant part of our population that wasn't part of the calculus about how wonderful Canada was. But that was the point: we thought that we were indeed -- to quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau from that time -- "a brilliant prototype for the moulding of tomorrow's civilization." I believed that then, and I still believe it. But today, what I see is that British Columbia may be the prototype for Canada -- a place where diverse cultures can be celebrated and respected, and where we live as one people amidst the differences that surround us. I think that's what the Nisga'a people see, too. I think the Nisga'a people want no more than what the rest of us want. They want to be treated with respect, to be allowed to be who they are.

I listened yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition tell us he was sorry for the past injustices suffered by aboriginal people and that his caucus was sorry. I don't doubt his sincerity in saying that. But I have to say in all sincerity that being sorry isn't good enough. Being sorry, you see, doesn't change anything. What the Nisga'a want is action. They want to create a new and a brighter future for themselves and for their children. They want a treaty. They want this treaty. They don't want people telling them they're sorry. On a lighter note, I'd just like to tell the Leader of the Opposition this: making a treaty means never having to say you're sorry.

The Nisga'a want this treaty. The treaty is the product of over 20 years of negotiation. The provincial government has been at the table for eight years. The treaty has been carefully crafted, and it's been moulded to accommodate the needs of all the three parties. It's a compromise in the best sense of the word, in the sense that Chief Justice Lamer spoke of when he talked about "give and take" and when he reminded us that at the end of the day: ". . .we are all here to stay."

I attended a conference on Delgamuukw shortly after being sworn in as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. It was at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. I want to share with you an experience, a story, there. One very eloquent woman, a young Carrier chief, told a story that I think is worth repeating. She talked about what Delgamuukw meant to her and to her people, and she talked specifically about what it meant to the elders, to the old people, those earlier generations in her nation. She told a story about one old woman who had said to her: "Delgamuukw gives me hope, because before that decision, I felt like we were a people on death row, waiting to die."

I think the Nisga'a treaty provides the same kind of hope. It provides a clear and a ringing signal of hope. It shows that issues we once thought were unresolvable can indeed be resolved. They can be resolved peacefully; they can be resolved for the good of all of us.

Madam Speaker, I am indeed honoured and proud to move second reading of this bill.

M. de Jong: This is an important day. Surely it is for days such as this that women and men seek election to this Legislature. On this day, when people gather and are actually watching and listening, we in this chamber may present our vision for the type of society we want to build for our children and grandchildren. It's on days like this that we are reminded of

[ Page 10822 ]

I'm one of those people who continues to see some value in the free exchange of ideas that is supposed to characterize these debates. We come here, I hope, prepared to speak with passion and conviction, expecting that our colleagues will do likewise, and always mindful of the dangers that will follow when attempts are made to intimidate or stifle the views of those with whom we disagree.

I was asked by a constituent several days ago how I thought this debate might proceed. I replied that I thought that many speakers on both sides of the House would remind us of the history leading up to this day -- a history that, particularly for aboriginal peoples, reflects the injustice, inequality and intolerance that they most certainly felt as a result of having a foreign culture unilaterally imposed upon them. I think it is important that we remind ourselves of that history. But I said to my constituent that I thought it would not be the focus of the debate, primarily because I don't believe there's anyone in this chamber who would dispute the fact that historically there have been grave injustices perpetrated against aboriginal peoples. Secondly, the Nisga'a themselves have stated -- wisely, I think -- that this process is about looking forward and building a future.

Without dwelling on that point, I do want to pause for a moment and emphasize a point made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I'm sorry for the fact that aboriginal peoples were denied their basic democratic rights, like the right to vote, for so many years. I'm sorry that aboriginal peoples were forcibly segregated onto reserves, where poverty and dependency became a way of life. I'm sorry that aboriginal children were taken from their homes and families and placed in institutions where their culture -- and, in some cases, much worse -- was taken from them.

They are only words, but when future generations look back on this treaty document, they will surely note the absence of those words from these pages. I say that because I'm compelled to ask: how many times did members of the select standing committee of this chamber hear from aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians who emphasized their own belief that the road to reconciliation begins with an acknowledgment of and apology for these past wrongs? Symbolic perhaps, but it was a recommendation that all members of the committee -- including the now Ministers of Environment, of Highways and of Small Business and the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- thought was important. Unfortunately, like so much of what that committee heard from British Columbians, the government has chosen to ignore it.

My constituent told me about comments he had heard the Premier make, that anyone opposed to this draft treaty was simply trying to camouflage their opposition to treaty-making generally. I've also heard those comments, and I reject them categorically. They are the comments of a government that is not interested in genuine debate and the comments, I'm sad to say, of a Premier who arrogantly proclaimed this to be his deal in a desperate attempt to capitalize politically at a time when British Columbians, in record numbers, are rejecting him and his government's policies.

No, Madam Speaker, this debate is not about whether or not we need to resolve the land claims issue. The answer to that question is self-evident. For the benefit of those members opposite who may yet try to deliberately misconstrue the position of the party I represent, let me say it again; we recognize the need to settle this issue, we support the negotiations of land claims agreements, and we seek the positive benefit that will flow from settlements that are truly final and that create genuine certainty.

So what is the debate about for me? At an individual level, it's about Leanne Wright, a young Nisga'a woman we heard from when the select standing committee visited New Aiyansh on October 1, 1996. It's about her desire to tear down what she called the rock wall that she has faced, which prevented her and her partner from obtaining a paltry $15,000 mortgage for a home they wanted to buy -- in spite of the fact that they are both earning an income. It's about determining whether or not this proposed Nisga'a treaty will actually operate in a way that ensures that all British Columbians possess an equal opportunity to benefit from their hard work. And for me this debate is about determining whether or not this draft treaty, and the principles it purports to enshrine as B.C.'s first modern-day treaty, provides a workable model for the 50 or 60 settlements yet to come. For a number of reasons, I'm sadly forced to conclude that the answer to those questions is no, and accordingly and reluctantly, I must withhold my support from this draft treaty.

[11:00]

The combination of granting the Nisga'a government paramount legislative authority in at least 14 areas of jurisdiction and enshrining that irretrievable consignment of power into a constitutional document like a treaty is what sets this government apart from any other local government. The question that you have to ask yourself -- the question that every member of this assembly has to ask themselves -- is: how will that model operate when replicated 50 or 60 times across British Columbia? It is a template; common sense dictates that it would be a template. It doesn't matter whether I call it a template or whether the Premier one week says it is and another week says it isn't. It doesn't matter what the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition House Leader says. The fact of the matter is that we all know it's a template, because no aboriginal group that comes after is going to accept a model that would presume to grant them less jurisdictional power than that which is included in this document. They won't -- and no one would expect them to. It is surely a template and needs to be addressed, discussed and analyzed from that point of view.

How practical will it be to have 50 or 60 governments purporting to exercise paramount jurisdiction in some areas -- a limited number of areas, granted -- and concurrent jurisdiction in a whole host of other areas? How practical will that be? How will the theory of the consultative obligations that this treaty contemplates translate into reality? In short, it is going to create bureaucratic gridlock. It will create, quite

[ Page 10823 ]

I find this all very troubling -- troubling enough to lend my name to a court action that has been commenced, which I want to speak about briefly in the time available to me. We've asked the court to rule on whether or not the governments of Canada and British Columbia have the constitutional authority to do what this treaty purports to do in the way it purports to do it. This treaty will create a third constitutional order of government. To deny that fact is to deny the obvious.

John Olynyk stated it clearly in an article he recently published in the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review. He wrote: "Self-government agreements will result in the creation of a coordinate third order of government." Listen briefly to his reasoning: ". . .the current constitutional paradigm views all powers, including those affecting members of first nations, as being allocated either to Parliament or to legislatures. This means that the subject matters over which first nations will have jurisdiction will have to be taken from the current powers of either Parliament or the provinces." In anticipating agreements of the sort that we are negotiating today, he writes: "This means that first nations law-making jurisdiction will not be delegated federal or provincial jurisdiction, but rather will be an independent third order of government, in the same way that the provincial legislatures are an independent order of government from the federal Parliament."

We've gone to court to seek an answer to this issue -- that is, the constitutional validity of the document that forms the subject of our debates in these coming weeks. We don't take any great delight in having done that or having had to do that. It would have been much preferable for the government to have initiated the reference to the courts. They refused.

Now we are here in this chamber today, this week, because the government has refused to await an answer from the courts to a fundamentally important question. Recklessly, I say, the government is storming ahead -- relying, it seems, on the Premier's argument that this can't amount to a constitutional amendment, because chapter 2, paragraph 8 of the agreement says that it doesn't. Well, the Premier, of all people, should know that saying something or writing something doesn't make it so. Saying you've got a balanced budget doesn't give you a balanced budget, and saying that the constitution isn't altered by this document doesn't mean that the constitution hasn't been altered by this document.

We've asked the questions, and if the courts agree that governments are lacking the authority to proceed in the manner they have chosen, then the hopes of the Nisga'a will again, for a time, be dashed -- sadly, lamentably. If that happens, the fault will lie not with those who asked the question but with those who didn't ask the question and who presumed to proceed in the absence of proper authority and contrary to the law.

This government assures us that it has legal advice, that it can proceed down this path, that it has the constitutional authority. How many times have we heard that in the past from this government? How many times have we been assured by the Premier that the legislation they purport to pass is valid? How many times have we been assured by the Attorney General that the gaming regulations are sustainable legally? How many times have the courts stepped in and said to this government: "No, you're wrong; you don't have the authority"? The stakes are so incredibly high. It will be the Nisga'a whose hopes will be dashed yet again because this government chose to proceed in a reckless manner.

We've gone to court because we reject the notion that the right to vote should depend on one's ancestry. I say that candidly and without apology. It was wrong to deny the vote to aboriginal peoples in the first part of this century, and it is wrong to deny the right to vote to non-aboriginal peoples in the latter part of this century.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not wrong to hold these views, but maybe the majority of British Columbians disagree with me. Maybe, when I express my concerns about the self-government provisions of this agreement, those are concerns held by a very small minority of British Columbians. I don't think so, but maybe. Maybe the majority of British Columbians don't share my concerns about limiting one's political rights -- fundamental rights, like the right to vote -- on the basis of one's ancestry. Maybe there are few British Columbians who share my concerns about organizing a fishery around ancestry, around ethnicity. Maybe the vast majority of British Columbians reject that and the concerns that all members of the select standing committee articulated around that issue. The ministers of Environment, Small Business and Transportation said that it's an unworkable model and that you need to look at fisheries on the basis of watersheds if you're to have any hope of managing that limited resource effectively.

Maybe those concerns aren't shared by the majority of British Columbians, but what about asking them? What about asking them for their opinion? The fact of the matter is that governments can change the way we govern ourselves, the way we live with one another. But on a matter of such fundamental importance, surely there is a direct role for the people themselves, leaving aside the legal imperative that exists here in British Columbia. Why the reluctance? The Aboriginal Affairs minister presented his arguments, but why the reluctance? Why the distrust? What is it about British Columbians that causes this government to be so distrustful? No one has suggested placing this document, the appendices and the side agreements -- those hundreds of pages -- beside a ballot box and asking yes or no. No one has suggested that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. The member for Matsqui has the floor and is entitled to the same courtesy that the previous speaker received.

M. de Jong: Surely it's logical that people would have a vote on the principles that will form the negotiating mandate that their government will take into 50 or 60 subsequent sets of negotiations. That's what the minority report recommended over a year and a half ago. That is the argument that I have taken to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs through successive legislative debates, including the debate this past summer that the minister and members opposite are fond of quoting.

[11:15]

[ Page 10824 ]

I am baffled and mystified at the degree of distrust that the Premier and this government have shown toward British Columbians throughout this process, and I reject it. I reject it absolutely and categorically. We are attempting to weave a new social fabric through the negotiation of these treaties, and surely it is proper that British Columbians should feel free to question the durability and workability of the particular fabric that this government purports to weave through this document.

There is one thing that I would ask of all members of this House -- and we heard it yesterday from the member for Peace River South. . . . Address your mind to the fact that we cannot speak of this treaty in isolation. Address your mind to the implications it has when replicated and applied across the province. Consider the workability of a treaty that will enshrine paramount powers in aboriginal government and, perhaps just as importantly, concurrent jurisdiction in a whole range of areas. Ultimately ask yourself why it is that the ability to consider those questions and render an opinion on them should be restricted to the 74 members who occupy seats in this chamber. I will listen for an answer, hon. Speaker. To this point, I have not heard one, but I will continue to listen throughout this second reading debate.

R. Kasper: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: Visiting us today in the precinct and now in the gallery are grade 5 students from Discovery Elementary in the Shawnigan Lake area, who are here to witness this historic debate. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to begin my comments today by addressing the wrapping-up remarks of the hon. member for Matsqui. I would like to say that I find those remarks extremely offensive -- to say that anyone would be afraid of public opinion in British Columbia with respect to a referendum. One first has to ask the question: why a referendum? I think that was made very clear last night by the negotiator for the federal government on the Nisga'a treaty when he said that the referendum is about the Nisga'a people and their changing of their rights as they have been enveloped in this agreement-in-principle -- that the Nisga'a people had a referendum in order to approve the actions taken by their negotiating committee in terms of changing their rights as Nisga'a people. Rights of non-aboriginal British Columbians are not changed by this treaty; therefore there is no referendum required.

I take great pride in rising in this third session of the thirty-sixth parliament to support Bill 51, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. Part of my motivation in seeking election in 1996 was to support the treaty process and the speedy resolution of the first of the modern treaties. I feel a soul commitment -- a moral commitment -- to this moving ahead. This bill is British Columbia's settlement legislation for the Nisga'a final agreement, the first modern treaty and land claims agreement in British Columbia. Bill 51 is British Columbia's ratification of the Nisga'a final agreement.

Hon. Speaker, I am very hopeful that this debate will shed light on the contents of the treaty itself for the public who are watching -- that they will have an ability to grow in their understanding of the principles of this treaty. The Nisga'a final agreement represents change -- change for the province of British Columbia, change from the refusal of Premier Smithe 111 years ago to discuss a treaty with the Nisga'a people 111 years ago, change from decades of court action, change to a negotiated settlement.

When British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, aboriginal people -- who were the majority of the population -- had no recognized role in political decision-making. They had no opportunity to vote. The terms of the union made no mention of aboriginal title but ensured provincial control of the creation of future Indian reserves. Canada assumed responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians, and at that point the government of British Columbia considered the Indian land question to have been resolved. Afterward, it regarded the federal government as having sole responsibility for all matters pertaining to aboriginal peoples.

In spite of these policies, the traditional values, identities, institutions and allegiances of aboriginal peoples endured. In all their communities and councils, there was profound conviction that their hereditary title remained in effect, that no treaty or other lawful action had extinguished that title and that newcomers needed to obtain first nations' consent for the use of their land.

In 1927, Parliament amended the Indian Act to make it illegal for Indians to raise or to spend money to advance claims. In 1951, Parliament repealed these provisions of the Indian Act, and political activity in pursuit of the long-established demands quickly re-emerged in British Columbia. In 1968, the Nisga'a went to court, seeking a declaration that they had held aboriginal title to their land prior to colonization and that their title had never been extinguished. In 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Nisga'a held aboriginal title in precolonial times, but judges split evenly on the question of the continuing existence of that title. In the wake of the decision, the federal government adopted a comprehensive claims policy and began negotiations with the Nisga'a in 1976. The province maintained its longstanding position of denying the validity of aboriginal title and did not join in these negotiations.

It was during the 1980s, largely because of the activities of local and provincial first nation organizations, that there was growing public support for aboriginal issues and a series of court decisions in favour of aboriginal people. Because of those initiatives, the provincial government became more responsive to aboriginal concerns. In August 1990, the provincial government agreed to join the first nations and the government of Canada in negotiations and proceeded immediately to enter the negotiations underway between the Nisga'a and Canada.

That was the beginning of this province's participation in the treaty process and, in particular, the negotiation of this Nisga'a final agreement. Today we're at the culmination of that process -- the ratification of the Nisga'a final agreement, the treaty which establishes Nisga'a rights and land claims. This treaty also represents change for the Nisga'a people. The treaty acknowledges the Nisga'a land claim and modifies the rights of the Nisga'a people. The modification of these rights deservedly requires and has received a vote of ratification from the Nisga'a people.

The struggle for a settlement of rights and land claims has ensued over 130 years, from a period of time of absolute denial to any claim, through a period of time when it was illegal for aboriginal people to meet to discuss land claims, to an acknowledgement of aboriginal title and the beginnings of

[ Page 10825 ]

This history demonstrates patience, perseverance and honour, which the Nisga'a people have shown throughout the years that they have fought for justice. The Nisga'a people finally have a real opportunity to join the mainstream of Canadian life and to engage as full citizens in the Canadian community.

We pride ourselves on our high standard of living in Canada. Our country is strong, rich in resources and breathtakingly beautiful. Our people are skilled, we live in peace, and we're free to enjoy our human rights. Our social programs rank among the very best in the world. These are things we all take pride in.

I'd like to draw your attention to a report in yesterday's newspaper about a human rights conference that was held in Edmonton. Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke engagingly about his gratitude to the Canadian people for standing strong with the people of South Africa during the times of apartheid. He repeatedly thanked the Canadian people for their strength in that struggle. Canadians have done very well in supporting human rights struggles in other countries, but we cannot say that we have paid the same kind of attention to addressing the injustices that exist with our aboriginal people.

For six years running, Canada has topped the United Nations list of the most livable countries. Ranked on the basis of education, income and life expectancy, Canada has the world's highest quality of life -- unless you happen to be an aboriginal person. Only last week, Canada was admonished by the UN for its poor performance in addressing the needs of the poorest among us, and we know that the poorest of the poor are our first nations brothers and sisters. Most of us have seen the results of a recent study done by the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It took the UN ranking system, the one that puts Canada at the top of the list, and applied it to aboriginal people. It confirmed that while the rest of us do very well, aboriginal people live in conditions that are closer to those in the Third World. In fact, this study found that native people off reserves have a quality of life comparable to those in Russia. On reserves, the rankings were below people living in Mexico or Thailand. That's deplorable, and the worst of it is that our Canadian policies and laws have largely been responsible for this shameful state of affairs.

[11:30]

The moral reasons for ratifying the Nisga'a treaty are strong enough by themselves to carry the debate. Most of our first nations have had almost everything of value -- their lands, their culture, their systems of government -- taken from them by European settlers. They've been fighting to set things right for over 100 years despite the many obstacles placed in their path. When it looked like native people might try to regain their lands, the federal government made it illegal for them to hire lawyers or even to meet in groups of three or more to discuss land claims. They were denied the right to vote. Populations were decimated by disease. Cultural and spiritual practices were outlawed.

It has been interesting to me to watch the debate in the public about the appropriateness of materials on the Nisga'a treaty in our school system in British Columbia. I'm ashamed to say that it wasn't until I reached university that I had my first encounter with the rich history of the first nations people residing in British Columbia -- my first encounter with the bitterness and the resolution of first nations to resolve land claims and to determine treaty rights. Hon. Speaker, this is very much a part of our history. It's a part of who we are; it's a part of our lives in British Columbia. And it is very appropriate that children in our schools learn of this history. Children of first nations people were taken away and put in residential schools. As we heard yesterday, the repercussions of that particular injustice are still being felt in many homes, as aboriginal people raised in institutions are judged to be inadequate parents and their children are taken away.

So the cycle continues. After more than a century of living in abject poverty, the health status of aboriginal people is well below the levels most of us enjoy. Life expectancy is seven years shorter than the national average. Infant mortality rates are two times higher.

When I was first elected to this House, I had the opportunity to review the report of Dr. John Millar, the provincial health officer. I took a look at my own health region and was dismayed to see that within the health region in which I reside, we have one of the highest neonatal mortality rates in the province. I called our statistics branch to find out how this could be. I was told to take a look at the map and see where this region goes. This region goes from central to northern Vancouver Island and includes the central coast as well. Many of the people living in that area are first nations people. Their levels of education and of support for good prenatal nutrition, for good parenting practices, for early health interventions -- many of those -- are not available to these people, leading to this very high neonatal mortality rate. Every one of these things is preventable, and it is outrageous, in my mind, that they are not being prevented.

Half of all aboriginal children live in poverty. It's been tough to break the cycle of dependency. Unless we negotiate fair land claim settlements and give aboriginal people back a real opportunity to achieve self-reliance and self-determination, their children will continue to feel there is no future.

It's time to put things right. The Nisga'a treaty is a beginning to putting things right. It ends the race-based reserve system on Nisga'a lands and welcomes Nisga'a citizens into our society as equals. It provides the resources they need to build an economic base and end over 100 years of dependency. Most British Columbians recognize this. They've told our government to get on with the business of resolving native land claims. The Nisga'a treaty proves that we can do it.

I urge all members of this House to take advantage of this landmark opportunity and close this chapter in the history of our province.

B. Goodacre: First of all, I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Nisga'a people for -- as their leader, Dr. Joseph

[ Page 10826 ]

I should also like to extend congratulations to the negotiators for the federal government and the provincial government, who have worked together with Nisga'a negotiators since the mid-seventies to forge the document that is before us today. That piece of work represents a tremendous amount of reflection on not just the laws that they're trying to change but also the cultural aspirations of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, in trying to forge a modern-day treaty that encapsulates the needs of a modern society along with the needs of a traditional aboriginal society. I think that we should be very grateful to these negotiators for doing the job they did to bring us this treaty today.

For myself, the issue of first nations rights is paramount. I live in the riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. In Bulkley Valley-Stikine there is a large variety of first nations, right from the Yukon border down to the Lakes District. All of these people share a very similar concern that is being brought forward to us today with this treaty. That's the whole issue of reconciliation of their existence on this land today and their pre-existence to the presence of any of the European settlers and to the modern society that has come to take over the entire globe. Reconciling these interests is a very big job, and that's a job that is left to us and to all of the people of British Columbia. But primarily, those of us who are legislators, both in Ottawa and Victoria, have to take this responsibility extremely seriously.

Now, the journey that Dr. Gosnell talked about, of course, started a long time ago, when the first fur traders made their way across the Rocky Mountains into this area, and the first ships started wandering up and down the coast from Russia and Spain and other European nations. When they came to British Columbia, they found many nations living here. There was a huge population. We all have heard the story of the smallpox and what it did to the many nations that pre-existed here. We can only wonder what our history would have been should that smallpox not have wiped out up to 90 percent of the populations that were existing here at the time of first contact.

It behooves us to reflect on the diversity of nations that existed in this territory before we arrived. Three hundred years ago, British Columbia was not a wasteland -- far from it. It was a very. . . . I mean, the populations here were large. The trade groups going through this entire province were extensive, and communication amongst these people was equally extensive.

The analogy between British Columbia as it existed before contact and Europe at the same time in history is probably an apt one to make. If we put aside some of the differences in technology, let's think very closely about what life was like here and what life was like in Europe at that time. You'll find that the differences are very small and the similarities are very great: large numbers of different cultures, large numbers of different languages, and people basically trying to get along together, with intermittent warfare -- very much the same thing that existed in the history of most of our forebears in Europe.

As we got to the point of actual contact here -- the point where we formed the first government here in the colonies in the 1850s and 1860s -- that changed everything in the relationship between the Europeans and the existing aboriginal people. Until that time, the Hudson's Bay Company had had a symbiotic relationship with the aboriginal people here. But once the gold rush started, that all changed. We developed a system of domination over the aboriginal peoples, and we must bear in mind that that colours everything we're dealing with today.

In my own personal life, my ancestors came to British Columbia at that time. As a matter of fact, in 1877, when the Nisga'a made their trip to Victoria, both the Goodacre and MacDonnell families were already living here in Victoria. In my own personal history, one of the MacDonnells -- a fellow by the name of "Blackjack" -- made his way up to our territory and set up hotels in Hazelton and Port Essington at the turn of the century. So the history of relationships between the aboriginal people and the province of British Columbia is something that has moved through my family.

When I hear people talk about apologies, I think in terms of how much we want to feel pride about what our own ancestors did and about how much we feel regret that some of the things they did are things we cannot feel proud about today, in light of the results of that history. The assimilation policy that was followed by the governments of the day was something we've become all too familiar with over time, inasmuch as white populations around the world -- or European imperialism, as it's called -- has forced a cultural blanket on the world that has not allowed aboriginal people -- not just in Canada but all over the world -- to express themselves.

We're forced to live with this kind of past, but now we are given an opportunity to make some changes in the way that we have dealt with this situation over time. In 1973, when the Calder case went to the Supreme Court and we got the decision that was mentioned earlier by our sister from Comox Valley, the federal government decided to deal with the situation in British Columbia differently than they had in the past. It set in motion what we're living with here today and what we're going to be asked to reflect on over the coming weeks.

[11:45]

When you talk about treaties, that is the vehicle that we have chosen to try to reconcile those two views, those two visions, those two mind-sets. I think that it really behooves us, as members of this Legislature, to reflect a little bit more seriously on what we're trying to accomplish with a treaty. It's not simply the legal aspects of a treaty that we have to be concerned about. We have to be very concerned about the object of the exercise, which is to recognize and respect, not just now but for all time, the legitimate aspirations of the people who were living here when we arrived 150 years ago.

[ Page 10827 ]

The movement towards residential schools is also an interesting paradox. In the early days of the residential schools, aboriginal people were attracted to the idea of becoming more skilful in the ways of the white people. The early idea of residential schools as places where aboriginal people could choose to get an education was something that was attractive. But history has shown very clearly that that was a lost opportunity, because it very quickly developed into a form of oppression in which the residential school system was used as deliberate government policy for driving "Indian-ness" out of the Indian people -- to try and cure them of their hunter-gatherer ways, to cure them of their cosmology, to cure them of being Indian people.

Unfortunately, the legacy of the residential school system is something that cannot be divorced from the treaty process either, because the whole process of recognition and respect of aboriginal peoples also requires with it a recognition of the history of the last 100 years. That history is something that has brought us to the various decisions that we have to make not just today with this treaty but every single day in our relationship with the conditions that exist in the villages throughout this province.

The reports that were mentioned -- again, by our sister from Comox Valley -- indicated very clearly that Third World conditions exist in the villages of this province. As a representative of many of these villages, I can attest to some of the very serious problems that exist in these villages. I was over at a small village near Granisle called Tachet just three weeks ago. I got to the band office, and there was a note on the door saying that the band office would be closed until further notice. Somebody was in the office, so I knocked on the door and talked to this woman who was in the band office. The reason it was closed was that there had been death threats from somebody in the band who was -- in a very serious way, obviously -- suffering from alcohol abuse and from a dysfunctional life. This person had phoned in death threats to this office.

This particular village is not atypical. Just recently I had a visit from one of the ministers of the Crown. The Minister of Women's Equality made a trip up to the northern part of my riding with me; we went to five different villages. In these villages, she got a first-hand account of how people in small aboriginal villages deal with the presence of large numbers of their children being affected with fetal alcohol syndrome, with large numbers of abusive spouses, with large numbers of people suffering from substance abuse, in terms of the kinds of numbers that we're used to dealing with in the general population. You can multiply all of those numbers by anywhere from six to ten times. Dealing with a population of, say, 100 people, you've got as many as 30 percent of those people in extremely dysfunctional situations. It creates community dynamics that most of us just cannot comprehend, in the absence of having been to these villages and talking to the people who are dealing with it.

One woman in Lower Post mentioned that Monday mornings, when the social committee gathers together at the band office. . . . The expression that she used is that they have a meeting to decide how they're going to "clean up the mess from the weekend." They live with this reality each and every day, yet the other side of the coin is the incredible courage shown -- especially by the women of these communities -- in terms of developing healing systems, working with the community to try and rebuild broken families, to try and rebuild a broken community.

What responsibility does that leave to the 75 of us in this chamber, whose basic responsibility is to steer the ship we call British Columbia? We do have a basic and profound responsibility to the aboriginal people of this province, not because we screwed up the past but because we live in the present. These people are our neighbours. They have an extremely divergent history from us -- one that we really need to take more responsibility to understand. One of the things that I have been most impressed by in this debate is that more and more people are coming to pay attention to the reality that aboriginal people are faced with in this province. I think that one of the best things that can come out of this Nisga'a treaty debate is that the people of British Columbia will wake up to the reality that we have abdicated our responsibility in the past.

We have an opportunity now to take this responsibility more seriously, and I think that the future of British Columbia does indeed rest in our hands, with respect to our relationship with aboriginal peoples. We have an opportunity now, through the symbolism of this treaty and through the efforts of us working together with the Nisga'a people, to make this treaty work and to show the rest of British Columbia that we are serious about making British Columbia an aboriginal-friendly place where we're actually interested in making life better at the community level for the thousands of aboriginal people throughout this province.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would thank you very much.

Now that I'm finished, noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

[ Page 10828 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just a couple of notices for the members. The Legislative Assembly will be sitting tomorrow. Also, I'd note for all members that at noon we're all invited to join the Premier and Frank Calder in the upper rotunda for a brief presentation honouring Dr. Calder's contribution to the Nisga'a people and to all British Columbians. I hope we will all be able to attend that forthwith.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada